
Martyanov's amendment once again attempts to smuggle in the Menshevik view that the peasants are more reactionary (or may be more reactionary) in the present revolution than the Cadets, inasmuch as the Mensheviks say not a word about the reactionism of the Cadets. Martyanov's argumentation conflates the issue: the duality does not lie in the fact that the peasants waver between revolution and reaction, but in the fact that they waver between the Kadets and the Social-Democrats. Under the guise of the "anarchic tendencies" of which Martyanov speaks, the Mensheviks will inevitably and inexorably introduce their favorite idea about the reactionism of the confiscation of landlord land and the progressiveness of redemption. The "anarchic tendencies" of the peasants—this is the phrase of liberal landowners. And it is absurd to speak of the subordination of the proletarian movement to the peasant movement after we have declared the opposite dozens of times and expressed this in resolutions.


It is beyond question that it would be a laughingstock for the Social-Democrats if we were to adopt Martyanov's amendment. On resolute struggle against the feudal state we have already said something at the beginning of the resolution. Now we must draw a political conclusion from this socio-economic situation. Our task is to wrest from the influence of those bourgeois who are incapable of this resolute struggle (from the influence of liberal landowners, Cadets) that section of the bourgeoisie which is driven to struggle by its economic position (that is, the peasantry). Martyanov proposes that we repeat at the end what was said at the beginning, so as to obscure the clear political conclusion.
